mcgilldebatefandomcom-20200213-history
Use of Alternate Formats
This page is focused on the discussion of when a team may wish to choose an alternative format in Canadian Parliamentary style rounds. Extended Rebuttal (PMRE) Note this is only accessible to Government teams. When it may be helpful: 1) The resolution is straightforward and it requires little time to set up and contextualize the debate. 2) Government's case "collapses" to only one or two core points which are sufficient to win. 3) You anticipate the bulk of refutation will be brought out in the second Opposition speech. 4) You plan on having a large amount of constructive in the Minister of the Crown's speech. When it is likely unhelpful 1) The round requires a precise definition and significant background. 2) You have many constructive points to bring out in the PM. 3) You are choosing PMRE because you don't have enough to say in the PM. Discussion: Tactically speaking you should choose to use PMRE when you have an exceedingly clear, simple case that focuses on a (suggested) maximum of three core points or principles. Your decision is informed by the fact that it will not take you much time to properly elucidate these points, and that your time is better spent defeating all possible objections to them. Teams that decide to be tricky and choose PMRE with the intention to leave a significant chunk of constructive to the MC play a dangerous game. On the one hand, you are hamstringing Opposition's ability to respond by cutting material from the PM and giving it to the MC, while simultaneously boosting your own ability to respond in the PMR to whatever Opposition may provide. This sounds good, but is arguably dirty play and may be frowned upon by some judges. Additionally, if you are confident in your material there is no reason to conceal it. The earlier Opposition responses occur, the earlier you can deal with them. This is likely to improve the quality of the debate and result in higher speaker scores. If, however, you believe that this obfuscation will be the difference between victory and defeat, it may be helpful. This tactic is definitely not recommended for anyone but advanced debaters as it requires significant situational judgement and meta-debate experience. Example: THW allow individuals to pay for donor kidneys. Opposition Split (Split Opp) Note this format is only avaible to the Opposition When it may be helpful: -One member of the team has a significantly better grasp of the Government case. When it is likely unhelpful: -If one member of the team has a significantly better grasp of the Government case, but for some reason elects to speak second. Discussion: There is less nuance to the use of Split Opp, as only the order of the speakers changes. In cases when one partner has a better grasp of the material it is nearly always useful to have them be the first to speak, as they will provide a more cogent response to Government. This allows the other partner more time to think about the case being presented and prepare a better speech. Additionally, hearing their more knowledgable partner present the outline of the Opposition case will likely aid the "lost" partner in figuring out what they should be focusing on. If nothing else, shifting the less knowledgable partner to the second speech - which ought to be primarily refutory - reduces the burden on them. Because the first and last speaker are the same in Split Opp, this also may help thematic consistency in the summary speech.